Whoa, Ymark, you sound like my old prof. Saddam, Stalin etc. wouldn’t have been given passing grades by Nicola. They violated half the rules. Machiavelli is all about balance- not at all about sheer brutality. Now purposeful, well thought out, carefully applied brutality, he was all for.

I hesitate to call him a genius, but he was a very clear thinker. If Bush had a Machiavelli advising him, Bush would be Golden. Or should I say, Bolden.

Besides, most communists actually use Machiavelli’s dark tactics themselves. It is no coincidence that the Soviets are masters of partisan warfare and propaganda. They are masters at double think. Anyone who can’t adapt their thinking, disappears. Like, Russia is at war with Germany, Russian has always been at war with Germany. The German fascistic forces will be pressed into the mud under our glorious Russian partisans.

Fast forward a couple of years and.

Russia is not at war with Germany, Russia has never been at war with Germany. The Germans are our allies, against the Imperialistic polities of Britain and France.

Fast forward another year.

Russia is at war with Germany. The fascist Germans with their traitorous Hitlerites, shall be extinguished from the Earth, with the help of our Comrades, the English and the American.

Machiavelli who?

Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results.

Ahhh, Machiavelli. Perhaps the most misunderstood and misrepresented figure in western civilization. I’ll never forget when my English lit 101 teacher, who was a communist, had us read ‘the prince’. He thought he was showing us the secret book of tactics for the evil capitalist imperialists to rule the earth by. I made a point of pointing out that Machiavelli endorsed nothing in the pamphlet, he simply discussed cause and effect. He also was specifically against oppression… he warned how it inevitably resulted in revolt, or lack of motivation to protect the prince, and thus his downfall. I don’t understand how someone who osstensibly taught English lit could be so obtuse in his reading of Machiavelli.

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it – in summer school.

As if it didn’t in his day too. Only takes a few to set the tone one way or the other…

As Victor Davis Hanson argued, sexual harassment Political Correctness induced scenarios are themselves reducing women to children. Individual people need the government to take care of them and pay for their healthcare, because individuals can’t take care of themselves. Why is that individual, not a child?

Along the way, you’ve provided the best, most concise explanation for Bush Derangement Syndrome that I’ve ever seen.

Why do so many people froth at the mouth and abandon all reason when they discuss George W. Bush? Because he ruined their fun. They thought they could be kids forever, without the responsibilities of previous generations… and along came Bush to wake them up.

If they could, they would pull the covers back over their heads, screaming “No! NO!! I don’t want to go to school today! I don’t want to be responsible! Do something about that Bin Laden meanie and then leave me alone!!”

But Bush won’t let us keep our eyes closed, will he?

And so every insult in the book is thrown at him… just as parents can expect from frustrated teenagers. He’s evil for spoiling our fun, and he’s stupid for not understanding how good things were before he ruined everything. If we could only get rid of him, everything would go back to the way it was, and we wouldn’t have to worry about terrorists anymore. And so on.

I am reluctant, extremely reluctant, to brand hard-left ideologues as being equivalent to spoiled children. But the similarities are striking, aren’t they?

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline

I really resent Ymarsakar prying into my high school transcripts.